United States v. Harold D. Murdock

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “spying on one’s spouse” does not constitute use of an extension phone in the “ordinary course of business” for purposes of Title III
• deciding that § 2515 does contain clean hands exception
• construing section 2515 to apply only to cases where the actual interceptor seeks to use the information against the victim of the interception
• construing section 2515 to apply only to cases where the actual interceptor seeks to use the information against the victim of the interception
• distinguishing case from Under-hill “in that the defendant was not the perpetrator but rather the victim of the interception and recording.”
• criticizing Vest and adopting a “clean hands” exception for governmental use of private interceptions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).